Issues in ESP Program Management(a)

Issues in ESP Program Management
(a) Materials
ESP is often noted as a materials-driven movement. The leading publications
of ESP are more practice-oriented than research- or theoryoriented
(St John, 1996; Dudley-Evans & St John, 1999). Preparing
materials for ESP instruction can be extremely challenging, as the
materials must be directly relevant to the learning needs and context.
However, not all ESP practitioners can be good material writers,
and it is unrealistic and time-consuming to create materials for every
ESP lesson (Edwards, 2000). Instead, ESP practitioners must be good
material providers, utilizing available resources. Checklists and guidelines
are available for evaluating and selecting ready-made textbooks
(e.g., Cunningsworth, 1995). The role of ESP practitioners is then
to be creative in modifying the materials and activities to meet the
needs of the learners. As materials can be obtained both from the
content area and from general or specific language instruction, ESP
practitioners must select, mix and match, grade, and sequence the
materials considering the learning context and needs.
Learners can as well be a source of materials, and so can be the coworkers
and supervisors of the learners. Learner involvement as the
material supplier may enhance learners' motivation in class participation.
Stapp (1998) also emphasized the importance of instructoremployer
collaboration in ESP course management. In ESP contexts
in particular, the learners are the experts on the content area as well
as on the target situations. Learners can provide the authentic materials
from the workplace, and they can participate in evaluating and
modifying the predesigned ESP materials to meet their needs.
(b) Cross-Cultural Issues and Curricular Innovation
The universalist approach to cross-cultural communication views that
the same rules and procedures apply to a particular culture: for
Introduction: Crossing the Line 23
instance, in east Asian culture hierarchy at workplace affects the social
relationship regardless of the context, whereas the boss is only the
boss in the office in North American culture. While many of these
universalist observations are based on close examinations of cultural
diversity, they also can lead to incorrect generalizations of a particular
culture. Hofstede (1980) contends that there is a spectrum of
values and beliefs that underlie a culture, and therefore there can be a
high and low tendency of different dimensions of culture: Hofstede's
dimensions include power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism
and masculinity. With regard to the relationship between culture
and language instruction, the major issue is how to assist learners
to communicate effectively in English with people from different cultures.
ESP training, EBP in particular, must reflect the cross-cultural
issues on the language instruction, as the impact of the training may
affect the business relationships between individuals, organizations,
and even nations.
As ESP is a relatively recent movement, it may be necessary for ESP
practitioners to import curricular innovation to the existing convention
of language teaching in the target culture. Curricular innovation
is a complex process involving various stakeholders such as adopters,
implementers, clients, suppliers, and change agents (Lambright &
Flynn, 1980). Kennedy (1988) states that the participants' roles are
not mutually exclusive in practice and the broad range of people
playing out different social roles is always involved in the design
and implementation of any innovation. He also proposes a hierarchy
of interrelating subsystems in curricular innovation as the following:
(a) cultural, (b) political, (c) administrative, (d) educational,
(e) institutional, and (f) classroom innovation. Culture is the foremost
factor in this hierarchy. The degree of openness to the change
and the speed of change will differ in each culture, and clashes will
arise if there is a misfit of concepts and pace of the change. Markee
(1997) describes the impact of sociocultural factors on innovation diffusion
based on his EEL experience in Sudan. He observes that if the
change is regarded inappropriate and irrelevant by the local stakeholders
the change agent is bound to face difficulties. According to
Markee, the crucial conditions for successful curricular innovation
are (a) the service users must feel they have stake in the program
24 English for Occupational Purposes
success, and (b) their needs, interests, and input must be valued in
curricular innovation.
Issues Beyond Classroom
(a) Workplace Literacy and Student Access to Language Training
The U.S. Department of Labor (1996) estimates that illiteracy costs
U.S. business about $225 billion a year in lost productivity. The Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 defines literacy as "an individual's ability
to read, write, speak in English, compute and solve problems at levels
of proficiency necessary to function on the job, in the family of
the individual and in society." This definition may not sufficiently
reflect the complexity of today's workplace environment and the
growing diversity in workforce. The National Institute for Literacy
(n.d.) reports the findings from a survey of more than 300 executives.
The survey found that, while 71 percent reported that basic written
communication training was critical to meeting their workplaces'
changing skills demands, only 26 percent of companies offered this
kind of training.
The statistics universally acknowledge the changing nature of work
and workplace communication and indicate that there is the need for
ESL/EFL workplace literacy training that is specifically designed to
enhance work performance through effective communication skills
in English. One of the major issues is how to make training accessible.
This especially concerns with learners with limited English proficiency
who need basic workplace literacy in order to survive at workplace.
Barriers such as a lack of childcare, healthcare, and transportation
make it difficult for such people to acquire training for work. Kerka
(1989) describes internal and external barriers that may face workers,
such as low self-esteem and lack of family support as the internal
barriers, and environmental instability and need for support services
as the external barriers. Evidence consistently demonstrates that
employment itself does not lead to employment for self-efficacy (e.g.,
Lent et al., 1994; Bandura, 2000). In other words, if the employees
are not provided with opportunities for development, they are not
likely to attain self-efficacy, the belief in their capabilities "to organize
Introduction: Crossing the Line 25
and execute the sources of action required to manage prospective
situations" (Bandura, 1986). Imel (1998) goes forward and claims:
"Based on the information in the literature, the question should not
be 'Should adult education focus on either work force education or
literacy development?' but rather 'Is it possible to combine both literacy
development and work force education?'" This question not only
concerns with the workers with illiteracy in their first language but
also relates to the growing population of international workforce in
English-speaking countries.
(b) Evaluation and Accountability
ESP workplace training is designed to find and apply the most costeffective
solutions to human performance problems in workplace
communication. ESP practitioners thus have the responsibility for
evaluating both the curriculum and the instruction in order to
ensure the positive impact of the program on learners' workplace
performance. Oliva (1997) distinguishes between curriculum evaluation
and instructional evaluation: curriculum evaluation is "the
assessment of programs, processes, and curricular products," whereas
instructional evaluation is the assessment of student achievement and
instructor effectiveness (p. 57). In terms of the duration of evaluation,
formative evaluation (cf. summative evaluation) might be more
beneficial for the practice of ESP as it helps shape and modify the
curriculum with ongoing efforts (Bachman, 1981).
Merrifield (1999) views accountability as "being responsible for
someone else for one's actions" (p. 1). Corporate clients for ESP
training programs should and will demand the evidence of employee
learning. Therefore, it may be crucial that the service provider and
the client agree on specific learning objectives and performance criteria.
Both quantitative and qualitative data can be used to measure the
effectiveness and the impacts of ESP programming. The data can be
as tangible as the return-on-investment (ROI), and intangible impacts
such as enhanced motivation and work morale can also be observed
through qualitative evaluation (Gordon, 2001). The performance
improvement can also be measured through pre- and postinstruction
tests (ibid.). Systematic criteria of the quality of the program can be
2 6 English for Occupational Purposes

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Issues in ESP Program Management(a) MaterialsESP is often noted as a materials-driven movement. The leading publicationsof ESP are more practice-oriented than research- or theoryoriented(St John, 1996; Dudley-Evans & St John, 1999). Preparingmaterials for ESP instruction can be extremely challenging, as thematerials must be directly relevant to the learning needs and context.However, not all ESP practitioners can be good material writers,and it is unrealistic and time-consuming to create materials for everyESP lesson (Edwards, 2000). Instead, ESP practitioners must be goodmaterial providers, utilizing available resources. Checklists and guidelinesare available for evaluating and selecting ready-made textbooks(e.g., Cunningsworth, 1995). The role of ESP practitioners is thento be creative in modifying the materials and activities to meet theneeds of the learners. As materials can be obtained both from thecontent area and from general or specific language instruction, ESPpractitioners must select, mix and match, grade, and sequence thematerials considering the learning context and needs.Learners can as well be a source of materials, and so can be the coworkersand supervisors of the learners. Learner involvement as thematerial supplier may enhance learners' motivation in class participation.Stapp (1998) also emphasized the importance of instructoremployercollaboration in ESP course management. In ESP contextskhususnya, peserta didik yang para ahli di daerah kontenseperti pada situasi target. Para peserta didik dapat menyediakan bahan-bahan aslidari tempat kerja, dan mereka dapat berpartisipasi dalam mengevaluasi danmemodifikasi materi ESP pradesain untuk memenuhi kebutuhan mereka.(b) Antarbudaya masalah dan kurikuler inovasiPendekatan Komunikasi antarbudaya universalis dilihat yangaturan dan prosedur yang sama berlaku untuk budaya tertentu: untukPendahuluan: Melintasi garis 23Misalnya, dalam budaya Asia Timur hirarki di tempat kerja mempengaruhi sosialTerlepas dari konteks, sedangkan bos hanya hubunganbos di kantor dalam budaya Amerika Utara. Sementara banyak dari inipengamatan universalis berdasarkan dekat ujian budayakeragaman, mereka juga dapat menyebabkan salah generalisasi tertentubudaya. Geert Hofstede (1980) berpendapat bahwa ada spektrumnilai-nilai dan keyakinan yang mendasari budaya, dan karena itu tidak dapattinggi dan rendah kecenderungan berbeda dimensi dari budaya: Hofstede'sdimensi termasuk daya jarak, ketidakpastian penghindaran, individualismedan maskulinitas. Berkaitan dengan hubungan antara budayadan pengajaran bahasa, isu utama adalah bagaimana membantu pelajarberkomunikasi secara efektif dalam bahasa Inggris dengan orang-orang dari budaya yang berbeda.ESP pelatihan, EBP khususnya, harus mencerminkan Antarbudayamungkin masalah bahasa instruksi, sebagai dampak dari pelatihanaffect the business relationships between individuals, organizations,and even nations.As ESP is a relatively recent movement, it may be necessary for ESPpractitioners to import curricular innovation to the existing conventionof language teaching in the target culture. Curricular innovationis a complex process involving various stakeholders such as adopters,implementers, clients, suppliers, and change agents (Lambright &Flynn, 1980). Kennedy (1988) states that the participants' roles arenot mutually exclusive in practice and the broad range of peopleplaying out different social roles is always involved in the designand implementation of any innovation. He also proposes a hierarchyof interrelating subsystems in curricular innovation as the following:(a) cultural, (b) political, (c) administrative, (d) educational,(e) institutional, and (f) classroom innovation. Culture is the foremostfactor in this hierarchy. The degree of openness to the changeand the speed of change will differ in each culture, and clashes willarise if there is a misfit of concepts and pace of the change. Markee(1997) describes the impact of sociocultural factors on innovation diffusionbased on his EEL experience in Sudan. He observes that if thechange is regarded inappropriate and irrelevant by the local stakeholdersthe change agent is bound to face difficulties. According toMarkee, the crucial conditions for successful curricular innovationare (a) the service users must feel they have stake in the program24 English for Occupational Purposessuccess, and (b) their needs, interests, and input must be valued incurricular innovation.Issues Beyond Classroom(a) Workplace Literacy and Student Access to Language TrainingThe U.S. Department of Labor (1996) estimates that illiteracy costsU.S. business about $225 billion a year in lost productivity. The WorkforceInvestment Act of 1998 defines literacy as "an individual's abilityto read, write, speak in English, compute and solve problems at levelsof proficiency necessary to function on the job, in the family ofthe individual and in society." This definition may not sufficientlyreflect the complexity of today's workplace environment and thegrowing diversity in workforce. The National Institute for Literacy(n.d.) reports the findings from a survey of more than 300 executives.The survey found that, while 71 percent reported that basic writtencommunication training was critical to meeting their workplaces'changing skills demands, only 26 percent of companies offered thiskind of training.The statistics universally acknowledge the changing nature of workand workplace communication and indicate that there is the need forESL/EFL workplace literacy training that is specifically designed toenhance work performance through effective communication skillsin English. One of the major issues is how to make training accessible.This especially concerns with learners with limited English proficiencywho need basic workplace literacy in order to survive at workplace.Barriers such as a lack of childcare, healthcare, and transportationmake it difficult for such people to acquire training for work. Kerka(1989) describes internal and external barriers that may face workers,such as low self-esteem and lack of family support as the internalbarriers, and environmental instability and need for support servicesas the external barriers. Evidence consistently demonstrates thatemployment itself does not lead to employment for self-efficacy (e.g.,Lent et al., 1994; Bandura, 2000). In other words, if the employeesare not provided with opportunities for development, they are notlikely to attain self-efficacy, the belief in their capabilities "to organizeIntroduction: Crossing the Line 25and execute the sources of action required to manage prospectivesituations" (Bandura, 1986). Imel (1998) goes forward and claims:"Based on the information in the literature, the question should notbe 'Should adult education focus on either work force education orliteracy development?' but rather 'Is it possible to combine both literacydevelopment and work force education?'" This question not onlyconcerns with the workers with illiteracy in their first language butalso relates to the growing population of international workforce inEnglish-speaking countries.(b) Evaluation and Accountability
ESP workplace training is designed to find and apply the most costeffective
solutions to human performance problems in workplace
communication. ESP practitioners thus have the responsibility for
evaluating both the curriculum and the instruction in order to
ensure the positive impact of the program on learners' workplace
performance. Oliva (1997) distinguishes between curriculum evaluation
and instructional evaluation: curriculum evaluation is "the
assessment of programs, processes, and curricular products," whereas
instructional evaluation is the assessment of student achievement and
instructor effectiveness (p. 57). In terms of the duration of evaluation,
formative evaluation (cf. summative evaluation) might be more
beneficial for the practice of ESP as it helps shape and modify the
curriculum with ongoing efforts (Bachman, 1981).
Merrifield (1999) views accountability as "being responsible for
someone else for one's actions" (p. 1). Corporate clients for ESP
training programs should and will demand the evidence of employee
learning. Therefore, it may be crucial that the service provider and
the client agree on specific learning objectives and performance criteria.
Both quantitative and qualitative data can be used to measure the
effectiveness and the impacts of ESP programming. The data can be
as tangible as the return-on-investment (ROI), and intangible impacts
such as enhanced motivation and work morale can also be observed
through qualitative evaluation (Gordon, 2001). The performance
improvement can also be measured through pre- and postinstruction
tests (ibid.). Systematic criteria of the quality of the program can be
2 6 English for Occupational Purposes

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

Isu Manajemen Program ESP
(a) Bahan
ESP sering dicatat sebagai gerakan bahan-driven. Publikasi terkemuka
dari ESP lebih berorientasi praktek dari penelitian- atau theoryoriented
(St John, 1996; Dudley-Evans & St John, 1999). Mempersiapkan
bahan-bahan untuk instruksi ESP bisa sangat menantang, sebagai
bahan harus langsung relevan dengan kebutuhan pembelajaran dan konteks.
Namun, tidak semua praktisi ESP dapat penulis bahan yang baik,
dan itu tidak realistis dan memakan waktu untuk membuat bahan-bahan untuk setiap
ESP Pelajaran (Edwards, 2000). Sebaliknya, praktisi ESP harus baik
penyedia material, memanfaatkan sumber daya yang tersedia. Daftar dan pedoman
yang tersedia untuk mengevaluasi dan memilih siap pakai buku teks
(misalnya, Cunningsworth, 1995). Peran praktisi ESP kemudian
menjadi kreatif dalam memodifikasi bahan dan kegiatan untuk memenuhi
kebutuhan peserta didik. Sebagai bahan dapat diperoleh baik dari
area konten dan dari instruksi bahasa umum atau khusus, ESP
praktisi harus memilih, mencampur dan mencocokkan, kelas, dan urutan
bahan mempertimbangkan konteks dan kebutuhan belajar.
Peserta didik dapat juga menjadi sumber bahan, dan sehingga dapat menjadi rekan kerja
dan supervisor dari peserta didik. Keterlibatan pelajar sebagai
pemasok bahan dapat meningkatkan motivasi peserta didik dalam partisipasi kelas.
Stapp (1998) juga menekankan pentingnya instructoremployer
kolaborasi dalam pengelolaan program ESP. Dalam konteks ESP
khususnya, peserta didik adalah ahli di bidang konten serta
seperti pada situasi sasaran. Peserta didik dapat menyediakan bahan otentik
dari tempat kerja, dan mereka dapat berpartisipasi dalam mengevaluasi dan
memodifikasi bahan ESP pradesain untuk memenuhi kebutuhan mereka.
(B) Isu Lintas Budaya dan Kurikuler Inovasi
Pendekatan universalis pandangan komunikasi lintas-budaya yang
aturan yang sama dan prosedur berlaku untuk suatu budaya tertentu: untuk
Pendahuluan: Crossing Line 23
misalnya, dalam hirarki budaya Asia timur di tempat kerja mempengaruhi sosial
hubungan terlepas dari konteksnya, sedangkan bos adalah hanya
bos di kantor dalam budaya Amerika Utara. Sementara banyak dari
pengamatan universalis didasarkan pada pemeriksaan dekat dari budaya
keragaman, mereka juga dapat menyebabkan generalisasi yang salah dari tertentu
budaya. Hofstede (1980) berpendapat bahwa ada spektrum
nilai dan keyakinan yang mendasari budaya, dan karena itu bisa ada
kecenderungan tinggi dan rendah dari dimensi yang berbeda dari budaya: Hofstede
dimensi meliputi jarak kekuasaan, penghindaran ketidakpastian, individualisme
dan maskulinitas. Berkenaan dengan hubungan antara budaya
dan pengajaran bahasa, masalah utama adalah bagaimana membantu peserta didik
untuk berkomunikasi secara efektif dalam bahasa Inggris dengan orang-orang dari budaya yang berbeda.
Pelatihan ESP, EBP khususnya, harus mencerminkan lintas budaya
masalah pada pengajaran bahasa, seperti dampak pelatihan dapat
mempengaruhi hubungan bisnis antara individu, organisasi,
dan bahkan bangsa.
Sebagai ESP adalah gerakan yang relatif baru, mungkin perlu untuk ESP
praktisi untuk mengimpor inovasi kurikuler untuk konvensi yang ada
pengajaran bahasa dalam budaya sasaran. Inovasi kurikuler
merupakan proses yang kompleks yang melibatkan berbagai pemangku kepentingan seperti pengadopsi,
pelaksana, klien, pemasok, dan agen perubahan (Lambright &
Flynn, 1980). Kennedy (1988) menyatakan bahwa peran peserta yang
tidak saling eksklusif dalam praktek dan berbagai orang
bermain keluar peran sosial yang berbeda selalu terlibat dalam desain
dan implementasi inovasi apapun. Dia juga mengusulkan hirarki
dari interrelating subsistem dalam inovasi kurikuler sebagai berikut:
(a) budaya, (b) politik, (c) administrasi, (d) pendidikan,
(e) kelembagaan, dan (f) inovasi kelas. Budaya adalah terkemuka
faktor dalam hirarki ini. Tingkat keterbukaan terhadap perubahan
dan kecepatan perubahan akan berbeda di setiap budaya, dan bentrokan akan
timbul jika ada ketidakcocokan konsep dan laju perubahan. Markee
(1997) menjelaskan dampak dari faktor sosial budaya pada difusi inovasi
berdasarkan pengalaman EEL di Sudan. Dia mengamati bahwa jika
perubahan dianggap tidak pantas dan tidak relevan dengan pemangku kepentingan lokal
agen perubahan terikat untuk menghadapi kesulitan. Menurut
Markee, kondisi penting untuk inovasi kurikuler sukses
yang (a) pengguna jasa harus merasa bahwa mereka memiliki saham dalam program
24 Bahasa Inggris untuk Kerja Keperluan
sukses, dan (b) mereka kebutuhan, minat, dan input harus dinilai dalam
inovasi kurikuler .
Isu luar Kelas
(a) Kerja Literasi dan Mahasiswa Akses ke Pelatihan Bahasa
Departemen Tenaga Kerja (1996) memperkirakan bahwa buta huruf biaya
US bisnis sekitar $ 225.000.000.000 per tahun dalam produktivitas yang hilang. Tenaga Kerja
Undang-Undang Investasi Tahun 1998 mendefinisikan keaksaraan sebagai "kemampuan individu
untuk membaca, menulis, berbicara dalam bahasa Inggris, menghitung dan memecahkan masalah pada tingkat
kemahiran yang diperlukan untuk berfungsi di tempat kerja, dalam keluarga
individu dan masyarakat." Definisi ini mungkin tidak cukup
mencerminkan kompleksitas lingkungan tempat kerja saat ini dan
keragaman tumbuh di tenaga kerja. Lembaga Nasional untuk Melek
(nd) melaporkan temuan dari survei terhadap lebih dari 300 eksekutif.
Survei menemukan bahwa, sementara 71 persen melaporkan bahwa ditulis dasar
pelatihan komunikasi adalah penting untuk memenuhi tempat kerja mereka
mengubah keterampilan tuntutan, hanya 26 persen dari perusahaan ditawarkan ini
jenis pelatihan.
Statistik universal mengakui sifat perubahan pekerjaan
dan tempat kerja komunikasi dan menunjukkan bahwa ada kebutuhan untuk
ESL / EFL pelatihan literasi tempat kerja yang dirancang khusus untuk
meningkatkan kinerja melalui keterampilan komunikasi yang efektif
dalam bahasa Inggris. Salah satu isu utama adalah bagaimana membuat pelatihan diakses.
Hal ini terutama keprihatinan dengan peserta didik dengan terbatas kemampuan bahasa Inggris
yang membutuhkan keaksaraan kerja dasar untuk bertahan hidup di tempat kerja.
Hambatan seperti kurangnya perawatan anak, kesehatan, dan transportasi
menyulitkan seperti orang untuk memperoleh pelatihan untuk bekerja. Kerka
(1989) menjelaskan hambatan internal dan eksternal yang mungkin dihadapi pekerja,
seperti rendah diri dan kurangnya dukungan keluarga sebagai internal
hambatan, dan ketidakstabilan lingkungan dan kebutuhan untuk layanan dukungan
sebagai hambatan eksternal. Bukti konsisten menunjukkan bahwa
kerja itu sendiri tidak menyebabkan kerja untuk self-efficacy (misalnya
Lent et al, 1994;. Bandura, 2000). Dengan kata lain, jika karyawan
tidak diberi kesempatan untuk pembangunan, mereka tidak
mungkin untuk mencapai self-efficacy, keyakinan pada kemampuan mereka "untuk mengatur
Pengantar: Crossing Line 25
dan mengeksekusi sumber tindakan yang diperlukan untuk mengelola calon
situasi "(Bandura, 1986). Imel (1998) berjalan ke depan dan klaim:
"Berdasarkan informasi dalam literatur, pertanyaan tidak harus
menjadi 'Haruskah fokus pendidikan orang dewasa di kedua pendidikan tenaga kerja atau
pengembangan literasi?' melainkan 'Apakah mungkin untuk menggabungkan kedua literasi
pengembangan dan pendidikan tenaga kerja?' "Pertanyaan ini tidak hanya
keprihatinan dengan pekerja dengan buta huruf dalam bahasa pertama mereka, tetapi
juga berkaitan dengan pertumbuhan populasi tenaga kerja internasional di
negara-negara berbahasa Inggris.
(b ) Evaluasi dan Akuntabilitas
ESP pelatihan kerja dirancang untuk menemukan dan menerapkan paling costeffective
solusi untuk masalah kinerja manusia di tempat kerja
komunikasi. Praktisi ESP sehingga memiliki tanggung jawab untuk
mengevaluasi baik kurikulum dan instruksi untuk
memastikan dampak positif dari program ini pada tempat kerja peserta didik
kinerja. Oliva (1997) membedakan antara evaluasi kurikulum
dan evaluasi pembelajaran: evaluasi kurikulum adalah
"penilaian program, proses, dan produk kurikuler," sedangkan
evaluasi pembelajaran adalah penilaian prestasi siswa dan
efektivitas instruktur (p 57.). Dalam hal durasi evaluasi,
evaluasi formatif (lih evaluasi sumatif) mungkin akan lebih
bermanfaat bagi praktek ESP karena membantu bentuk dan memodifikasi
kurikulum dengan upaya berkelanjutan (Bachman, 1981).
Merrifield (1999) memandang akuntabilitas sebagai " bertanggung jawab untuk
orang lain atas tindakan seseorang "(hal. 1). Klien perusahaan untuk ESP
program pelatihan harus dan akan menuntut bukti dari karyawan
belajar. Oleh karena itu, mungkin penting bahwa penyedia layanan dan
klien setuju pada tujuan pembelajaran yang spesifik dan kriteria kinerja.
Kedua data kuantitatif dan kualitatif dapat digunakan untuk mengukur
efektivitas dan dampak dari program ESP. Data dapat
sebagai nyata sebagai return-on-investment (ROI), dan dampak tidak berwujud
seperti peningkatan motivasi dan semangat kerja juga dapat diamati
melalui evaluasi kualitatif (Gordon, 2001). Kinerja
perbaikan juga dapat diukur melalui pra dan postinstruction
tes (ibid.). Kriteria sistematis kualitas program dapat
2 6 Bahasa Inggris untuk Keperluan Kerja